MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
HELD JULY 25, 2007
OAKDALE REHABILITATION AND SKILLED NURSING CENTER:
APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
MEMBERS PRESENT: Patricia Halpin, Chair, John Baker, Karen Paré, Lawrence Salate, and Vincent Vignaly
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Amico, Robert Goodman, Sami Baghdady, David Oriol, Russell White, Rolinda White, and John Parmentier
Ms. Halpin re-opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. This is a continuation of the public hearing opened on June 27, 2007 for a Site Plan Review of proposed additions to the existing Nursing and Rehabilitation Center at 76 North Main Street. Ms. Halpin noted that the Planning Board received many of the materials for this hearing on July 24th, which did not leave enough time for careful review.
Mr. Baghdady, the attorney for the applicant, reported to the board that they had worked with the Planning Board’s review engineering firm, VHB, over the last month. The plans presented tonight resolve most of VHB’s concerns and the remaining issues require decisions by the board. Mr. Baghadady noted that there are constraints on their construction schedule and would appreciate the board’s action.
The plan before the board has several changes from the plan that was originally submitted. The access road from Waushacum Street has been eliminated and access to the rear of the building is provided by an access road that loops around the north side of the building from the parking lot. A five-foot buffer zone has been added between the front of the building and the parking lot. The underground propane tanks have been relocated further from the building. A new fire hydrant was added. The sign location has changed. The fence and landscaping around the loading dock has been modified to protect the abutters. New drywells were added to handle drainage overflows.
Mr. Amico, engineer for the Planning Board, reported that he has met with the Applicant in July and that they have worked through many issues. He received an email with the latest submittal on July 19th. There are still several issues remaining as detailed in Mr. Amico’s letter of July 24, 2007.
The plan proposes four underground propane tanks for heating the building and the board discussed whether this posed a hazard in the Aquifer Zone. It was noted that the DEP guidance on development within a sensitive watershed district lists propane as the preferred fuel. It was questioned whether a leak detection system was needed. Mr. Baghdady stated that propane evaporates and that a leak would find the path of least resistance and go into the air and not the ground water. Mr. Goodman noted that DEP reports that when propane does get into groundwater, it evaporates as soon as the water comes into contact with the air. In general, it is better if the tanks are buried and protected from the weather by the soil. The tanks are buried below four-feet and with not be affected by freezing. The applicant
is required to apply for a permit from the Board of Selectmen who is the licensing authority in this instance. Mr. Baker suggested that the licensing authority and the Building Inspector would make the decision on whether a leak-detection system is needed and that the Planning Board should make it a condition of their approval that all licenses and required approvals be obtained.
Mr. Amico noted that the site plans do not include cones of illumination for the lighting as required by the standards. Since no new lighting is proposed, Mr. Amico recommends that the applicant request a waiver for cones of illumination. Mr. Goodman noted that the cones of illumination are included on the landscaping plan and that, during construction, some of the lights will be removed and replaced.
A table with the specie quantities and sizes of the new landscaping has been added to the plans.
VHB recommended that a walkway to connect the new entrance with the existing main entrance be provided, as well as curb stops on all parking spaces along the front of the building and bollards around the fire hydrant. Mr. Parmentier stated that the Fire Chief did not have a problem with missing bollard but that the hydrant could be pushed back. Ms. Paré noted that the fire hydrant is located on the corner near the loading dock and queried about trucks turning around and backing up near the unprotected hydrant. Mr. Baker noted that pushing back the hydrant from the parking lot might make it difficult to clear a path to the hydrant through snow. The board decided that bollards are needed in this instance. The discussion turned to the question of a pedestrian walkway connecting the entrances. Mr. Goodman
noted that the new door is not an entrance but is provided for exiting the building, especially in an emergency. It will be locked from the outside. Mr. White, 45 Waushacum Street, offered his opinion that, based on his visits to the site, a walkway is unnecessary and would, in fact, not be used. Since this new door is not an entrance, the board agreed that a walkway is not needed. Mr. Oriol reported that there were stops on the parking spots in the past and that they did not function well and had to be removed. It was agreed that a curb or Cape Cod berm along the front of the building would be a better solution and that it will be added to the plans.
Though the new door is not an entrance, the question of ADA accessibility is still an issue, since it must be used as an exit in an emergency. This is particularly important given the nursing home use. However, the small distance between the building and the parking lot complicates this issue. After a discussion, it was agreed that it is possible to add a landing at the doorway and run the ramp along the face of the building, instead of the proposed stairs.
It was questioned whether the Fire Chief had given his approval to the new location of the access road. Mr. Parmentier reported that he spoke to the Chief today and that Chief Pauley will send his approval to the board.
The screening on the loading dock on the south side of the site was discussed. Mr. Baghdady stated that this dock will remain in the same location, though there is now a new enclosed structure to which the trucks will just back up. No materials will be stored outside. The applicant will put vinyl fencing around the dock and, in deference to the neighbors, have extended the fencing along the south side. Arborvitae will be planted on the neighbor’s side of the fence.
Mr. Amico’s letter noted that, in at least one location, a proposed slope exceeds the recommended 2:1 slope limitation. He suggested the use of Mirafi 140N stabilization fabric at the 2:1 slope locations. Mr. Vignaly, who also serves on the Earth Removal Board, indicated that fabric is not a requirement, but that it is required that the slope be stable. Hydroseed with a tacifier may be sufficient. Mr. Parmentier will discuss with the situation with the contractor and the applicant agreed to ensure the stabilization of all slopes.
The board then moved to discuss remaining stormwater and drainage issues. Mr. Amico’s review letter recommended that the applicant increase the diameters of three of the drywells on the site since they would overflow during storm events greater than 10-year storms. These drywells have no outlet. Mr. Parmentier stated that they modeled the system with larger diameters and that they will still overflow. All of the run-off for the new construction is handled underground properly. Mr. Baker questioned the current stormwater handling. Mr. Parmentier reported that all of the stormwater is currently dumping into the street. They are adding diverters to store some of the existing stormwater underground and providing general improvement to the site. Mr. Vignaly asked the level of the current
ground water. Mr. Parmentier reported that they did not encounter any ground water and found sandy soil in their test pits and soil borings. It was agreed that the Operations and Maintenance plan will be revised to include the drywells and infiltration system.
Given the existing building and the existing connection to the sewer system, it is not possible to get the minimum 2% slope required by the West Boylston Sewer System Construction Requirements. However, the proposed design will work correctly according to Mr. Parmentier. Mr. Parmentier spoke with Mr. Westerling and will provide him with a letter detailing the design of the proposed system and requesting his approval and stating that the applicant is responsible for the system should it fail. The board noted that they must receive Mr. Westerling’s approval before they can approve the site plan.
The Applicant noted that the entrance and exit signage, indicating that the parking lot is one-way in and one-way out, as requested by Mr. Amico, already exists.
The Applicant agreed to provide new plans with the required changes and all supporting documentation to the board before the next hearing.
Upon the motion of Mr. Baker and a second by Mr. Vignaly it was unanimously voted to continue the public hearing until August 8, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
Date Accepted: ______________________ By:__________________________
Karen F. Paré, Clerk
Submitted By: ______________________
Karen F Paré
| 
